1 Order Below Exh.1 in Cri. Bail Appln. No. 382/2022 CNR No. MHNS010012832022

Chandrabhan @ Pintu Ashok Kandekar Vs. State.

Heard:
Ld. Adv. Mr. R.J.Kasliwal for the applicant.

Ld. A.P.P. Ms. S. S. Sangle for the State.

1.This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in Crime No.1068/2021 registered at Sinnar Police Station, Nashik for the offense punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5 & 6 of the Prevention of Immoral Trafficking Act, 1956. It is the case of prosecution in brief that the applicant /accused no.1 was running a brothel in the premises under the name and style of ‘Hotel Nisarga’. Other accused are the customers.

2.Ld. Advocate for the applicant Mr. Kasliwal has submitted that Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the ITPA are triable by the Ld. J.M.F.C. Investigation is over and charge­sheet has been filed. Previous bail application of the applicant was rejected before filing of chargesheet. Applicant had taken the said premises on rent as per Bombay Lodging & Boarding Act. He has submitted that the applicant was the Manager of the said Hotel and whether or not he was running a brothel can only be determined at the conclusion of the trial. Other co­accused have already been released on bail by the Ld. J.M.F.C.

None of the victims have stated that the applicant forced them into prostitution or was living off the earnings of prostitution. The trial before the Ld. J.M.F.C. has almost concluded and the matter is now kept for recording Sec. 313, Cr.P.C. statement of the accused. It may take time for the statement to be recorded since one of the coaccused has been arrested in Hydrabad. Moreover, the deposition of the I. O. indicates that the I. O. was a P.S.I. and therefore the trial is vitiated by Sec. 13 of the said Act. Applicant should therefore be released on bail.

3.Per contra, Ld. A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the application on the ground that the offense is serious in nature involving flesh trade. The applicant herein was not the Manager in as much as lease agreement has been entered into by and between him and the owner of the said premises. Three victims were also found at the spot during the raid (out of which one is from Maharashtra and two are from West Bengal). The victims have categorically stated that the applicant forced them into prostitution and was thus living off the earnings of prostitution. Perusal of the evidence reveals prima­facie case against the applicant. If he is released on bail, he may continue to commit similar offences and also flee from justice. Ld. Trial Court has rightly rejected the bail application of the applicant. Application should therefore be rejected.

4.Perusal of the charge­sheet indicates prima­facie case against the applicant which involves flesh trade. There is enough incriminating material in the charge­sheet including photographs and statements of the victims and also lease agreement in respect of the said premises. In her statement, the victims have categorically stated that “they work in the applicant’s Hotel from 12.00 noon to 5­00 to 6.00 p.m. and that the applicant / owner of the Hotel Pintu Kandekar asks them to accompany customers for committing sexual intercourse in a room in the Hotel up­stairs for consideration”. As per the directions of the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Freedom Firm V/s. Commissioner of Police, Pune & Ors. in Criminal P.I.L. No. 4/2015, specific guidelines have been laid down for Judicial Officers while dealing with cases of human trafficking. In the said judgment, Honb’le Bombay High Court has inter­alia held as follows :

“28 …. Hence the court would, as a general principle, refuse bail to an accused who is shown as a trafficker in human beings as such accused pursues a career in such crime, which is prone to reputation, which is expected to have antecedents and which is generally indisposed to intimidation and threats. The Court would certainly release on bail such of the accused or co­accused as are themselves not traffickers but may be shown to have played some minor role in the commission of the offence. The Court would release on bail a brothel owner but only subject to the closure and sealing of his brothel under Section 18 of the ITPA”.

5.In the case at hand, the applicant was running the brothel. Therefore, his role is not only different from that of the customers, but also consists of a serious offender as specified by the Division Bench in the above matter. As far as the evidence brought on record by the prosecution and the argument of vitiation of trial is concerned, it is for the Ld. Trial Court to consider the same at the stage of final arguments. The matter is at its fag end. If the applicant is released on bail at this juncture, it may delay the disposal of the case further. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am inclined to reject the application.

: O R D E R :

Application is hereby rejected.

Order dictated & pronounced in open Court.

Digitally signed by MRIDULA MRIDULA BHATIA Date: BHATIA 2022.04.06 12:15:20 +0530 Nashik Mridula Bhatia 06/04/2022 District Judge ­2 and Addl. Sessions Judge, Nashik.